<p>This method of analysis is much preferred over cut-and-pasting stuff from Wikipedia (unattributed, no less), and then misinterpreting it, which is what you did, and what you seem to make a habit of.</p>
<p>I’ve just removed you from the list of CCer’s I’m inviting to my double-wide for barbeque and prayer on Labor Day. Pistol shoot, too, and perhaps a little snake-handling. Your loss.</p>
<p>Sempitern, I think they generally smoke crack rather than inject. Are you snorting or sipping that Chianti? How long do you think it will be before the mods notice you’re back from being banned, under another user name?</p>
<p>But was it moral? Come on, whoever leaked it, was it moral and was it in keeping with the spirit of President Bush’s very good law to make it a crime to devulge the names of CIA operatives? Come on, answer the question and don’t divert the topic…</p>
<p>ps- I never said it was Rove, know did I?</p>
<p>Say whether it was moral or not? That seems to be the Administration’s standards of behavior, so was it MORAL!!! I really don’t care about illegal in this argument, but was it MORAL??? But hey, don’t answer the question…</p>
<p>Exactly who was the whistleblower in this case has been the crux of the matter all along, which you would know if you had read the sources you cited (see Taranto, above).</p>
<p>Here’s the definition of “covert agent” from the relevant statute:</p>
<p>4) The term ‘‘covert agent’’ means -
(A) a present or retired officer or employee of an
intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed
Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency -
(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member
is classified information, and
(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within
the last five years served outside the United States; or
(B) a United States citizen whose intelligence relationship
to the United States is classified information, and -
(i) who resides and acts outside the United States as an
agent of, or informant or source of operational assistance
to, an intelligence agency, or
(ii) who is at the time of the disclosure acting as an
agent of, or informant to, the foreign counterintelligence or
foreign counterterrorism components of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation; or
(C) an individual, other than a United States citizen, whose
past or present intelligence relationship to the United States
is classified information and who is a present or former agent
of, or a present or former informant or source of operational
assistance to, an intelligence agency.</p>
<p>Valerie Plame was an “officer of employee” of an intelligence agency. To be covered under the statute, her identify as such would have to have been classified, and she would have to have served outside the US within the previous five years.</p>
<p>Does anyone here know whether either of these things were true?</p>
<p>Perhaps a better question is how would Rove have “known” if Plame was a covert intelligence officer - if indeed she was. That would be sensitive compartmentalized information and access to it would be on a need to know basis. It would be difficult to imagine how a political advisor to the president would have a “need to know” Plame’s status. And if he did have a need to know it who told him and under what set of circumstances?</p>
<p>I suspect before this silly affair is over that there will be a couple of surprising twists. The liberal press - and you can’t get any more liberal than the NY Times and Time Magazine have never fallen on their swords before on principle to protect conservative sources. If they are doing it now it is because there is more to the story than has come out.</p>
<p>Somebody asked earlier if outing Plame was moral. Yes it could be. Wilson a career hack decided to become a political hack and he used information (or in his case misinformation) obtained through his wife’s connections to try and influence US foreign policy. A question I would like to have answered is how does Wilson come to write a one line report for the CIA but apparently not be covered by any confidentiality or non-disclosure rules? That would never happen in the private sector and indeed should in itself be considered a breech of ethics.</p>
<p>"Valerie Plame was an “officer of employee” of an intelligence agency. To be covered under the statute, her identify as such would have to have been classified, and she would have to have served outside the US within the previous five years.</p>
<p>Does anyone here know whether either of these things were true?"</p>
<p>An investigator would not likely have been called in if there was not reasonable suspicion that a crime had been committed. First they would attempt to understand would that crime might be, and then they would investigate it.</p>
<p>True enough mini but I’ll believe in the Tooth Fairy before I’ll believe that the NY Times would go to the mat to cover Karl Rove’s big right-wing butt. There are some missing pieces in this story. Plus quite frankly Rove is too smart to get caught doing something illegal. You don’t survive as long as he has without knowing where the thin ice is.</p>
<p>“An investigator would not likely have been called in if there was not reasonable suspicion that a crime had been committed. First they would attempt to understand would that crime might be, and then they would investigate it.”</p>
<p>Mini, with respect, the FBI had initially determined that no crime had been committed after an informal review, but the demands there be a formal investigation were too strong to ignore. That sort of political pressure doesn’t require “reasonable” suspicion to result in an investigation.</p>
<p>With the way Wilson has been shown to have misrepresentationed facts and an investigation resulting from political pressure in the absence of evidence of a crime, it’s hard not to question whether anyone involved acted honorably.</p>
<p>Here’s a quote from an April 8 New York Times story:</p>
<p>"But lawyers involved in the case and experts in media law said the statement suggests that Mr. Fitzgerald has not yet developed evidence that any government officials, in talking to reporters about Ms. Plame, violated an obscure 1982 law that makes it a crime to identify undercover officers in some circumstances…</p>
<p>“Legal experts said Mr. Fitzgerald’s statement raised questions about the direction of the investigation, which may have changed its focus from the disclosure of Ms. Plame’s identity to obstruction of justice or perjury by an administration official.”</p>
<p>It has come out that it was, indeed, Rove who first revealed the source. He can now be tried for perjury and unmasking a secret agent (though this is unlikely to go over).</p>